How did the Muslims conquer so much territory so quickly?
>>390234
Through the power of Islam and determimation.
Christkeks are:
>Muh holy land
by being very peaceful and likeable
>>390234
>putting a historical nation over modern borders
This always triggers me so much
>>390234
banding together through faith in order to fight the other people with a different fair in Europe
they mostly ran through empty desert proclaiming that now that territory was theirs
>>390234
Most of that land already spoke Aramiac and were being oppressed by the Nicaen Church. Justinian lost the east when he went in for communion with the Pope
>>390263
stop this meme
>>390263
>Levant
>Egypt
>Persia
>Anatolia*
>Hispania*
Anyway, I think the most common explanation is because Byzantines and Sassanids were busy fucking each other up.
>>390234
by the will of allah
>>390234
Eastern Romans and Sassanids exhausted each other militarily. Islam united tribes into a powerful group able to conquer, and add in the greater potential for growth almost all conquest enable with a pretty tolerable government you've got a decent chunk of expansion explained.
>>390234
jews opening the gates for them
Camel Archers
1. Through the sheer brilliance of Khalid ibn Al Walid
2. Byzantines and Sassanians were exhausted after both JUST their empires
>>390234
>The Romans and the Persians fighting with each other until no one was standing.
>The Persian empire almost collapsin by itself.
>Some Jews yearning to have some serious could-be-messiah-like-figure who could release them from gentile Romans and maybe build up the third temple.
>Christian denominations fighting and arguing with each other (chalcedonians, miaphysites, monothelesites, invent some more).
>Arabs being happy that finally they also can have a shiny religion and a prophet just like their neighbours etc.
>Bad political and religious situation was open for the apocalyptic message of early Islam.
Generally, the situation in the Mid-East was just terrible, and Muhammad and his followers seized their moment. Muslims had good generals, unexpected tactics, a good dose of fanaticism and an opportunistic approach.
>>390234
apparently Muhammad was the third man in a triple threat match with the Sassanids and Byzantines too focused on each other for too long
>>390255
I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it does help me picture the size/landscapes of historic countries because I am more familiar with modern imaginary lines, but it limits involvement in the truly historic.
>>390234
Two things basically.
>The Byzantines and Sassanids had just finished an utterly devastating war ~5-10 years ago.
>pic related
>Muhammad conquers a bunch of land
>his successors conquers more land
>some land that wasn't conquered decide to be Islamic anyway
not like it was a "hit the ground running" thing it's like asking how the Mongols conquered all their land.
Khalid bin al-Walid or, the Sword of God
>>390416
>>390728
Pretty much this.
iirc from Fred Donner's book on the Muslim conquests, the war in both Roman and Sassanid territories can roughly be divided into three parts:
1) Establishing control over local nomadic peoples in the respective areas (Syria and Mesopotamia)
2) Decisive battle (Yarmuk for the Romans and al-QÄdisiyyah for the Sassanids, though this is an oversimplification and there were other battles, particularly in the Sassanid area)
3) Mopping up operations
The Sassanids were broken completely and the Romans withdrew across the Taurus mountains. Since local cities knew there wasn't going to be an army coming to rescue them, they usually negotiated a surrender rather with the Muslims than going Alamo.
>>390234
Because a lot of that land is basically empty desert. They weren't conquering every inch of farmland with a population that was opposing them (or that could be drafted into armies opposing them), there were taking an archipelago of oases and cities spread thin across all that territory. The Sassanids and Byzantines just having beach each other up made sure the cities and green bits were under-defended, but there wasn't as much to defend/conquer as the map implies. For reference, here is a modern map of population density.
>>390234
they were basically like the mongols, they united the tribes and made great use of light cavalry
>>391083
For reference, compare that with Europe or Han China. Bit harder to fully conquer.
Sparcely populated territory is easy to conquer, and even easier to just lay claim to.
>>391054
The first time was as soon as Omar became caliph and he was demoted from high command, but was still a part of the army.
His replacement general immediately promoted him to commander of all cavalry as well as chief adviser. He basically had free reign and split off from the main force whenever he wanted to take a stronghold.
Omar REALLY didn't like that so eventually had him dismissed again from the army entirely under the pretense that he bathed with wine or some crap.
>>390234
This is a really obvious question you could've answered yourself OP but I'll humor you:
The Persians and Byzantine/Eastern Romans had been fighting each over for literally a year shy of fully 30 years. Both empires bleed each other of manpower, capable generals and commanders, money, and more importantly their standing to the peoples of the Levant and Mesopotamia.
Islamic forces under the first Caliphate are fully experienced from inter-wars in Arabia over issues of apostasy, succession, and maintaining control with their new religion. The Persians at the this point had lost the war in a stunning reversal of fortune and and suffered a plague that wiped out half of the empire's total population by the year just before the last Sassanin Emperor, Yadezegerd III, Khosrau Parviz's grandson, is crowned at the age of 11 or 12.
So long story short: Persians and Byzantines final war financially and militarily bleed both empires of leaders and manpower needed to counter the Muslims. Persians suffered a plague that would wipe out surviving nobles and government officials and their ultimate head of the nation is an untested grandson of the last great Persian ruler whose a child.
Islam came when both powers that could've countered them were weakened. It's that simple.
>>390250
I've always wondered what would've happened if the Berbers had been able to thwart the Muslims? The Arabs faced their first stumbling block with them since they were just as hardy in the desert and were fiercely independent.
>>391109
Wow I can't understand this? Didn't Umar realize the risks he's taking? One, what if Khalid refused to step down and went with his royal army and wrecked Umar? Two, what if by dismissing Khalid, the Rashidun army weren't as effective as it used to be?
I mean just for bathing with wine?! what about his life long achievements? There must be another reason for this
>>391151
it's a modern map. But yeah, most of that applies to the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and North Africa more than to the Levant.
>>391152
Omar was the appointed successor and Khalid had already given him his oath of fealty. The official reason he gave was because he didn't want people to think they were winning only because of Khalid.
They must have had some rivalry at some point. Early Islam was pretty rife with inter-tribal/clan political maneuvering among the elite. Also keep in mind, Omar was also a renowned warrior as well so maybe jealousy as well, although unlikely.
Regardless, the bathing with wine excuse makes it pretty transparent that there was some shit going on behind the scenes with the two.
>>391188
Mohammed already unified Arabia by the time he died and the real military explosion happened after that.
Plus the land was a LOT more fertile a thousand years ago, so I'm sure there were larger populations living in Iraq, Persia and Syria.
>>391194
yes, that actually makes sense. I'm surprised people back then hadn't objected to the fact that Umar had dismissed -or should I say sheathed - "The Sword of God"
>>391151
Syria was actually a pretty successful country before the war tore it apart
>>391126
didn't the Sasanian Empire have good relations with China and India back then? Why didn't they ask for help/reinforcements?
>>390255
Umayyad? :^)
Early on, conquest and promising protection to local leaders who joined in exchange for tax. Later on, trade and missionary work.
>>390367
This also, plus Petra, Desert Religion, and Adopting Tradition early on.
>>391083
You're a fucking idiot. Everything but the Arabian desert was good clay as some anon pointed out above.
>>391225
Omar was known for being pretty fair minded when it came to setting up distant governments and connecting them back to Mecca, however as the previous anon pointed out, constantly taking new land without developing a proper system of government to preside over it would be seriously taxing to the nation as a whole. If anything, the demotion was to reign him in rather than antagonize him. The relationship between the two was heated but by no means were they hostile to one another.
>>391724
Back then, having good relations with China meant that you didn't kill their Silk Road merchants. That's about it. China was more focused on its own issues regarding Korea and the other East Asian provinces.
>>391724
The Sassanids had ethnic Persian merchants living in Guangzhou for centuries even after the fall of the Persian Empire to the Arab Caliphate's forces. And yes Iranians have always had relations more or less on begin strata with China and India since the times of the Medians in fact both earliest direct recorded evidence is from the Arsacid/Parthian period of Iran.
Also remember, members of the Sassanid royal family escaped via Central Asia to China and Yadezegerd III's son rose to became a commander and general in Emperor Zong's court and his son, in turn would lead several raids and military expeditions fighting Arab garrisons in Central Asia trying to reclaim the Persian throne.
Justinian Plague gutted the ERE's manpower to such a degree that they never really recovered. Add onto the constant fighting between the ERE and Sassanian Empire.
Better question, at what point did they change from a once-great world super power to mud hut goat fuckers?
>>390234
Because they were commanded by Khalid ibn Walid, literally the greatest conqueror that part of the the ancient world had seen since Alexander the Great.
>>391987
What are you trying to say, /pol/?
>>391994
>making territorial gains against two exhausted empires magically puts Khalid on Alexander's level
Holy shit you faggots are cancerous.
>>392000
>Making territorial gains with a well trained and veteran army against a failing empire led by dumbfucks makes you a great general.
Yeah okay Alexfag.
>>392004
Not an Alexfag remotely but:
>making territorial gains with a well trained army against two exhausted empires who are both nearly financially depleted and facing multiple crises and political instability
>comparable to Alexander
No.
>>392000
That exhausted empire meme is overplayed tbqh. The Arabs would've been rekt if they tried attacking the Sassanids or the Byzantines like they normally do (tribal raids, razzias, etc)
Khalid's military thinking and his reorganization of the Arabian tribes into a cohesive fighting force played a much larger part in their rapid success.
>>392004
>>392016
I would say beating up Persia which had just suffered a nearly decade long plague that wiped out of between 1/3rd to about roughly 1/2th of its total population and going through multiple civil wars for succession to throne hardly puts Khalid on par with Alexander defeating a relatively stable Achaemenid Empire.
So no, a great general sure. But comparable to Alexander in military ability? Not remotely.
>>391997
>>391997
It's a seriously question you Fucking delusional retard.
>makes obvious observation
>the observation involves ethnicity
>GTFO /POL/
do not act like Arabs as a whole are not just as bad as sub Saharan Africans. They contribute nothing to the world as a whole, and litelly Fuck goats and live in mud hutts
>>392023
t. Stormfront
>>392023
They don't though. Ethnic Arabs and Arabized middle-easterners are vastly superior to niggers. They mostly live in apartments or houses and fuck their ugly wives.
>>391987
Around the time the Mongols came through and destroyed everything.
>>392062
No.
The Ottoman Empire rose to power after that and became a world power.
Also, the Mughals.
The real decline in the Islamic world happen much later. The Mongol invasion merely heralded the end of the Arab-Islamic golden age of cultural and scientific discovery and saw a shift in the Islamic power centers from the Middle East to Anatolia/Eastern Europe and South Asia.
>>391987
All downhill since the Abbasids.
>>391928
>Persian prince fighting for chinese against Arabs.
SEE, WHY WASN'T THIS PRINCE OF PERSIA!?!?!?!
>>392086
The question was when did they change from being at the edge of advancement to dragging behind globally like today, that has been pretty much agreed by a good portion of historians to coincide with the Sacking of Baghdad. The reasons Muslims were able to advance so quickly was because Islam provided a lengua franca in Arabic and Baghdad provided a central hub to pour over previous Greek texts and share new ideas with.
However, this >>392107 is a more general answer that actually hits further home in that most of the Abyssdian Caliphs were fucking terrible and petty.
>>391928
Whatever happened to the Sassanid royal family? Did they just give up after a while or did they embrace Islam?
>>391151
Syria's always been a very rich part of the Levant.
>>390350
This. The Sassanids were kil and the provinces of the Byzantium they conquered were fucking sick of the Central Goverment because of lmao theological difference.
>>390234
>power vacuum of late antiquity
>good Muslim commanders
>well motivated Muslim soldiers
>appealing ideology
>>390234
The Sassanid empire had collapsed on itself after their devastating war with the byzantines. The byzantine empire was exhausted and overstretched, having marched all across the eastern world. The loyalty of the egyptian and syrian cities were also very doubtful since there was still theological issues between the patriarchates.
Then there was Khalid Ibn-Walid. A military genius who had defected from his pagan tribe to the islamic side. The muslim side was young and vigorous and were united by their newfound faith. The byzantines and sassanids were old and tired and suffered from extensive infighting. The result was obvious.
